Rejection of refund claim - EDD - 1% extra duty deposit - unjust enrichment - Held that: - reliance placed on the decision of the case of C.C., Bangalore Vs. Ecomaster (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (1) TMI 389 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] as the issue is squarely covered. It was held in the case that the amount paid by the assessee was not Customs duty on any imported items but was only a deposit of extra amount. They are asking refund of the same. The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a correct view that the .....

13.11.2015, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly, the facts of the present case is that the appellant was importing Mechanical seals from their related company, M/s S.K.F. Sweden and their associates companies. Since the appellant is deemed to be related to their foreign suppliers, the Department referred the matter to SVB Mumbai for investigation. The appellant was paying 1% EDD (Extra Duty Depos .....

richment . Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order rejected the appeal and upheld the impugned order passed by the lower authority. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that EDD was paid in terms of the Board s Circular Nos. 1/98 Cus dated 1.1.98 and 11/2001-Cus dated 2 .....

e also submitted that EDD is not duty of Customs as per Section 2(15) of the Customs Act, 1962 and is not charged / collected as per Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. He also submitted that once it is proved that EDD is in the nature of security deposit with the Department then the principles of unjust enrichment is not applicable for refund of the same. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions : (i) C.C., Chennai Vs. Minerva Trade .....